|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:29 PM |
|
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:30 PM |
|
|
You answered just before I deleted my post. And the reason I did so is because I realized that we're getting too carried away. Unlike different clothing and signs, nudity is not a symbol and it can be offensive by itself without any hidden meanings.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:32 PM |
|
|
I thought you were just tormenting me by putting my views to the ultimate test.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 06:33 PM |
|
|
Amen, you are the wisest one sal.
@bb: whats wrong with ya? i expect some loly post from you, talking seriously is not your style.
Thinking it again, i would say religion its more like men sizing their... ...noses.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I asked, what if in a country where the constitution grants protection from discrimination due to religious or gender reasons, a religion discriminates because of gender?
Protection from discrimination is not enforced in private lives, because it violates the freedom to think and speak up your mind, and be yourself. If you hate jews, you hate jews. The state has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to tell you who to accept or not. (obviously this is a fundamental private right).
If the constitution says, woman shall not be discriminated, then that's the state's viewpoint, not the individual's viewpoint -- i.e a public state-run institution doesn't tolerate discrimination, but it has nothing to do with someone's own, private, choices.
Quote:
Both blizzard and Death said, that there was no problem, because the women wouldn't be forced to be part of a specific religious community.
That point isn't valid, of course, because you are never forced to be part of anything - you can always go elsewhere, leave, if somewhere for some reason your rights are violated. If a woman is molested in some dive, well, she did voluntarily come in there didn't she?
That's not even close! If the woman had signed the contract that said she volunteers to molestation if it were to happen, then yeah, you would have had a point. If she did what's your business to tell her what to sign and what not, if she wants to risk it and agrees with the risks and renounces her protection by rights?
Quote:
Now the interesting thing here is, that seemingly they don't have a problem with the fact, that although the constiturtion protects against discrimination because of religion or gender, all cases ends with a woman applying for a job is not getting it because of either her religion or her gender. Surely that should raise one or another question?
Again, the constitution protects against discrimination is THE STATE'S BUSINESS, not a PRIVATE business. I'm not capitalist, but even I acknowledge civil liberties and private truly free CHOICES. As long as it's private, that is you don't infringe it on people who don't agree with you (but only those who CONSENT), then there is no problem.
Quote:
To make the point a bit more pronounced: Some religions demand draconic penalties for "certaimn sexual behaviour". I suppose, no one would say, that members of such a religion who do sin that way should suffer the penalties for that - a modern state doesn't tolerate killing homosexuals for religious reasons.
If the homosexuals consented to that and the religion's viewpoints (AND the people who were going to "punish" them), who are you to stop them from wanting to get tortured?
It's pretty simple, you see?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
The only thing easy to see for me is that you are wrong, Death, and wrong with each and every point, which is somehow disconcerting. This is a post I'd normally shrink back to answer, since it's so far off of everything, but *sigh*. Let's see.
Quote:
Protection from discrimination is not enforced in private lives, because it violates the freedom to think and speak up your mind, and be yourself. If you hate jews, you hate jews. The state has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to tell you who to accept or not. (obviously this is a fundamental private right).
If the constitution says, woman shall not be discriminated, then that's the state's viewpoint, not the individual's viewpoint -- i.e a public state-run institution doesn't tolerate discrimination, but it has nothing to do with someone's own, private, choices.
That's just wrong. It ain't so. Oh, you can hate women - or Jews -alright; but you are not allowed to discrimate them. "We don't serve women!" No chance to see that sign anywhere - at least not in Western civilization. Of course you can reject a woman for a job. But then the woman can sue you, claiming you did it just because you can't stand women, and if she can prove that her qualifications are superior, she'll win.
So this one is simply as wrong as it can be.
Quote:
Quote:
Both blizzard and Death said, that there was no problem, because the women wouldn't be forced to be part of a specific religious community.
That point isn't valid, of course, because you are never forced to be part of anything - you can always go elsewhere, leave, if somewhere for some reason your rights are violated. If a woman is molested in some dive, well, she did voluntarily come in there didn't she?
That's not even close! If the woman had signed the contract that said she volunteers to molestation if it were to happen, then yeah, you would have had a point. If she did what's your business to tell her what to sign and what not, if she wants to risk it and agrees with the risks and renounces her protection by rights?
I'll answer what I answered Mvass: (so this is actually a quote)
Quote:
For me the situation is the same: at some point you are in a certain situation:
a) member of a religion;
b) in a dive;
Suddenly something happens.
a) you are 21, wear a sexy shirt, since it's summer, and you get hit by your family members and called a snow because you do.
b) you are in a dive in the same shirt and are called a snow and molested.
If you say, well, you can't leave your religion, you can say just as well you can leave the dive.
Additionally, I may add, that as a rule you don't pick your religion, it's picked for you. And while you may "learn" a certain disparity, it doesn't mean that you have to be prepared for what may actually happen after you marry.
Your next point is as wrong as the first.
Your last point is, sorry, Death, just plain and simple Death nonsense. Do you really need a roadmap sketched, why it wouldn't be a good thing, when suddenly people would be killed left and right because they were homosexuals, kissed a virgin, has sex outside of marriage and so on and on and endlessly on; that's plain insanity, and the fact that you suggest this in all earnest is quite telling.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"We don't serve women!" No chance to see that sign anywhere - at least not in Western civilization.
Because freedom is no longer as valued as it once was. 
Quote:
a) member of a religion;
b) in a dive;
Suddenly something happens.
a) you are 21, wear a sexy shirt, since it's summer, and you get hit by your family members and called a snow because you do.
b) you are in a dive in the same shirt and are called a snow and molested.
Then the problem isn't with the religion but with the family. It doesn't matter what their religion is - they can't violate somebody's rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:33 PM |
|
|
Ah, Mvass, but that's exactly the problem - the family does it because their religion tells them it's right.
And the same guys may molest said girl in the dive, because their religion may be responsible for the notion that such a sexy clad chick must be a snow.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only thing easy to see for me is that you are wrong, Death, and wrong with each and every point, which is somehow disconcerting. This is a post I'd normally shrink back to answer, since it's so far off of everything, but *sigh*. Let's see.
I'm wrong? All I see from you is breaching private rights and not allowing them to do things in their private lives.
I don't see WHERE the matter is about right or wrong, though, unless you mean morally, which I think that the state has no business telling people in their private lives what to do and what NOT to do (i.e discriminate) as long as it's THEIR private lives and involves only those who consent to such lives.
If anything it's you who want to be THE nanny who knows "best" -- you notice I'm not saying muslims or religious people should tell YOU what to do in your private life, but you are telling THEM what to do. I see it as hypocritical.Quote:
Your last point is, sorry, Death, just plain and simple Death nonsense. Do you really need a roadmap sketched, why it wouldn't be a good thing, when suddenly people would be killed left and right because they were homosexuals, kissed a virgin, has sex outside of marriage and so on and on and endlessly on; that's plain insanity, and the fact that you suggest this in all earnest is quite telling.
Wow thank goodness that this is public so anyone can see it instead of your completely wrong conclusions or interpretations about my post.
No, I see no problem with homosexuals getting tortured if they consent with it. I see a problem, on the other hand, with people like you telling them what to do. Thinking you're above their own decisions and all that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:46 PM |
|
|
Death, it's the darn LAW, for frig's sake, not my decision! Can't you read? It's the freaking law that says, no, if you have a dive somehwere, you just can't say, no we don't serve women. The LAW FORBIDS IT. Christ. If you have a private room somewhere, yes, then you can so what you want and forbid women or Jews or whatever to enter. BUT NOT IN PUBLIC!!!
Now, for killing all kinds of people - even euthanasia is forbidden, so even if someone would give their consent to be killed - NADA!
However, in this case I don't even see the consent. Where do you get the consent from? You think that homosexuals, adultresses and so on suddenly all have a death wish?
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:49 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 20:50, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Yeah, TheDeath, I have the same question: who consents to what? Do you honestly believe women and homosexuals in Muslim countries consent to anything?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:56 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:58, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Death, it's the darn LAW, for frig's sake, not my decision! Can't you read? It's the freaking law that says, no, if you have a dive somehwere, you just can't say, no we don't serve women. The LAW FORBIDS IT. Christ. If you have a private room somewhere, yes, then you can so what you want and forbid women or Jews or whatever to enter. BUT NOT IN PUBLIC!!!
Then the law sucks, that was the whole point of this thread. STOP TAKING THE LAW AS AN ARGUMENT IN A THREAD THAT CRITICIZES IT. You're getting old.
Quote:
Now, for killing all kinds of people - even euthanasia is forbidden, so even if someone would give their consent to be killed - NADA!
Even more ridiculously breach of freedom of choice.
Quote:
However, in this case I don't even see the consent. Where do you get the consent from? You think that homosexuals, adultresses and so on suddenly all have a death wish?
No, if a homosexual says "I believe in religion, which says I sin and that I must be punished", then he consents.
@Vlaad: Yes but this isn't about muslim countries, this is about a hypocritical country which says it's better than a muslim country because "of personal freedom". Freedom my ass.
Or let me put this differently. If you must compare yourself to a muslim country and say that "they do it!" to justify yours, you're no better or different than them, as blizzardboy said before.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 09:02 PM |
|
|
JJ:
It doesn't matter why the family does it, or why the guys do it. All that matters is that the woman is innocent and they should be punished.
Quote:
Now, for killing all kinds of people - even euthanasia is forbidden, so even if someone would give their consent to be killed - NADA!
Because Western countries make a show about caring about individual rights, but don't really care.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 09:05 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 21:08, 02 Dec 2009.
|
OK, I get it now. But we're going in circles: if they had it their way, you could forget about your freedom. In this case the oppressed would eagerly become oppressors if given the chance, hence the xenophobic laws. You're not alone: the Swiss government and NGOs oppose the ban, but they were overruled by the public vote. But we've already been over this.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 09:11 PM |
|
|
They don't have it their way because I'm only talking about personal choices, not nation-wide choices such as elections or whathaveyou.  (which is why the direct democracy in Switzerland sucks, but yes, we've been through that).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 09:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Their choice, their choice, their choice. Parrot!
I've no hostile intentions, I just wanted to show you that in your examples nothing wrong was performed which had something to do with the muslim people in specific.
Quote:
you can't ask a country to allow you using your religion restrictions and ask for integration and not discrimination WHILE on the other side everything you do or claim opposes to real integration.
Could you define integration for me please? I'd like that before continuing this part to ensure no misunderstandings.
Quote:
Their choice? In their country YES. Outside, adapt or leave.
Actually, in their country I don't think they've that choice to be honest, but I'm not certain. It's one of the places where western civilization seems better, because people have a choice.
However you can say that they've a choice, but then must suffer servere consequences, but I think my point is, they've more freedom here, so here they can do that without having to fear consequences, hopefully.
Quote:
A massive vote will acknowledge this for sure.
But is it relevant?
Quote:
Isn't in your country that a comic drawer was threated by a fatwa for designing some Mahomet comics? What is your opinion about that?
I'm not certain what a fatwa is, so sorry if my reply does not answer your question, if that's the case please notice me about it.
I remember the case of the mahomet drawings. In my opinion of course anyone is free to draw whatever they want. Also the middle east is free to be offended as much as they want. I remember our news media going crazy over them starting to burn flags and a lot of people talking about that all muslims were bad. For me it didn't matter.
The funny thing though is that where danes did not see themselves as representants of what a news media did, they assumed muslims had the same viewpoint. When muslims did not share this viewpoint they were ignorant. Then muslims started burning flags and the danes believed that these flag burners represented all muslims. Talk about who's ignorant there. Anyway that's pretty generalising and I think I made my opinion clear, as long as you're not limiting others freedom, you're free to do what you want. Equal rights.
Quote:
similarly the Swiss could claim the ban is due to architectural reasons, that minarets spoil the city skyline or like you said, they're too loud. After all, they voted to ban minarets, not mosques.
True, I did to begin with think that could be the reason, but then I realised that the vote was specific on this question, and that's very suspicious, you vote for the problem, not the result of the problem.
So if it was too much noise, the vote should have been on a sound barrier.
Too tall? The vote should have been on a maximum height.
What do you think about that view point?
Quote:
My religion says, I am NOT allowed to wear any clothes at all.
You may believe in that religion if you wish.
Applying it however goes against the laws and will be prohibited.
I think the examples people come up with somehow insinuates that by religion freedom it means you're free to do anything in the name of said religion, but that's not how it is, you're free to any opinion you wish, also a religious one, and you're free to do whatever you want which does not limit others (or what I believe is what the law tries to be).
Also, though another topic, I think there's no problem with being naked in public, except it's very cold.
Quote:
Banning buildings doesn't mean the religion is banned.
That's true, but it's a bit suspicious when the question goes so specifically on the building, it should, in my opinion, have went on the reasons for banning in the first place. If the ban is due to, let's say to much noise, then the ban should be on noise at the given level, which is what the vote should have been for in that case.
Quote:
This may seem like off-topic, but I want to hear an answer before I continue:
What if man is walking with a swastika on his shirt?
Coming from a person who did not live under WWII, but did loose family members in the concentration camps, the act of WWII are horrible and hopefully something we'll never see again. However what people think, or to say their opinion, doesn't really matter, because it's not an action and only actions we can measure.
I remember from the environment I grew up in, many liked to walk around with nazi signs, claiming to be a nazist and wanting to kill jews, eventhough they knew I was a jew and said it to my face, I didn't care, and they knew I didn't care. I don't know if they really wanted to do it, and I don't care, because as long as they didn't do it, it was no different for me.
Also, I think they're just trying to provoce a reaction out of me, as these people were considered as friends. So I don't think they really knew the consequences of the opinion they tried to symbolize.
Even people who does know are entitled to said opinion, as long as they do not actually perform the actions.
But it's again back to the interpretation issue, which does not magically give you rights.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then the law sucks, that was the whole point of this thread. STOP TAKING THE LAW AS AN ARGUMENT IN A THREAD THAT CRITICIZES IT. You're getting old.
Yeah, Death, sure, the whole civilized Western world human rights and anti-discrimination laws suck. You are beyond any hope.
Quote:
Quote:
Now, for killing all kinds of people - even euthanasia is forbidden, so even if someone would give their consent to be killed - NADA!
Even more ridiculously breach of freedom of choice.
Off-topic.
Quote:
Quote:
However, in this case I don't even see the consent. Where do you get the consent from? You think that homosexuals, adultresses and so on suddenly all have a death wish?
No, if a homosexual says "I believe in religion, which says I sin and that I must be punished", then he consents.
This is so trivial that even you should know it. Religion and churches have no jurisdictional power at all. What exactly a person is obliged to, when he or she is a member of a religion is not for the religion, their priests or other members to decide; instead it's specified by worldly law. Even you should know that, and even you should value that.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, Death, sure, the whole civilized Western world human rights and anti-discrimination laws suck. You are beyond any hope.
What are you doing in this thread? It was started by people in the "whole civilized western world", not muslims...
your point being? adhering to authority, is that correct? is that what you are advocating here? we adhere to the marvelous rulers in the western civilization?
Quote:
This is so trivial that even you should know it. Religion and churches have no jurisdictional power at all. What exactly a person is obliged to, when he or she is a member of a religion is not for the religion, their priests or other members to decide; instead it's specified by worldly law. Even you should know that, and even you should value that.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Of course priests aren't allowed to force (if you said that), unless the homosexual acknowledges that.
Example 1:
Religious dude: "Priest says you sin, and must be punished."
Homosexual: "Keep your fingers off me you fairy worshiper!"
he doesn't get tortured.
Example 2:
Religious dude: "Priest says you sin, and must be punished."
Homosexual: "I understand God's will and I am prepared to be punished for my sins."
he gets tortured. Perfectly ok. He gave his consent.
Let me ask you something, who are you to stop him? Who are you to stop other people from suiciding? Their nanny? Do they not have the right TO THEIR OWN LIFE?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
Just forget it. Forget I ever talked to you. I could call you an idiot now and claim you gave your consent - strangely enough that wouldn't stop Mytical giving me a penalty, though, and you should know why and why it was right, but I'm afraid you don't, so it's not worth it.
You prefer to live in your own special world, and the more I learn about it, the less I'm inclined to have any part in it.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:58, 02 Dec 2009.
|
As usual you make ZERO sense whatsoever. If you want to use analogies give PROPER ones. You said I gave my consent (analogy of course)? ok show me where something I said can lead to that analogy (that I give my consent).
EDIT: Ok let's simplify this. Scenarios:
I say "hit me, I consent to it" to you, and you hit me. The state has no business to interfere, I allowed you to do it.
HC isn't run by the state though, so I'm not sure if they have the same freedom rules.
And besides, insults don't even need a consent (they aren't punishable), but I'm usually more worried on those who need insults to make a point rather than the one who gets them, to be honest.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
